Note:
This section will hopefully explain how and why our 'Democracy' is in such a mess. Although we are very much a 'have' nation when it comes to natural resources, we are far from being at the forefront of development when it comes to justice and equality.
As explained below, and as I have experienced, there are a number of telling factors that lead to an ultimate impossibility of any well-defined core of similitude, let alone 'sameness' in the overall procedure. With 10 Provinces, and 3 Territories, each defining its own set of Rules? How can this come even close to a National concept of a Civil procedure in Canada?
If each Province has its own set of Rules, how, in heavens sake, can a Canadian citizen domiciled in British Columbia even THINK he/she can be equally, let alone fairly treated in an other province?
========================================================================
Civil procedure in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For rules of civil procedure by country, see civil procedure.
In Canada, the rules of civil procedure are administered by each jurisdiction (federal and each province) and thus each has its own set of rules.*1 Most provinces base their civil procedure rules on the mixture of English and American rules adapted to the needs of the province. The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure have been largely adopted by Manitoba, PEI, and North West Territories.
In Ontario, the stated general principle of the Rules of Civil Procedure is
Civil procedure is generally developed by a civil procedure committee consisting of judges of the local jurisdiction. This committee makes recommendations concerning procedural changes which must be ratified by the attorney general of that jurisdiction in order to move into effect.
The courts may also exercise inherent jurisdiction to control their own processes, but inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to conflict with a statute or rule. As a result, if a process has been contemplated by the civil procedure a court does not have the authority to alter or dispense compliance with that process.
The noted exception to the required compliance with the civil procedure is that the rules themselves often contain a rule which permits a court to
The onus is on the party seeking to dispense with compliance with a rule to demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice.[1]
Alternative dispute resolution proceedings and administrative law proceedings both tend to have relatively simple rules of procedure, in comparison to the highly formalized procedures seen in the federal and state courts.
=======================================================================
*1) Each Jurisdiction having its own set of rules.
Let's have a closer look at this; after all, this is the 21st Century, in the second largest geographic, have Nation in the world! Let's have a real close look at how a nightmare unfolds. Let's TRY to learn from our misconceptions, thinking that anything can actually make SENSE; because it doesn't, since it CAN't.
It CAN't when Rules in ONE Jurisdiction, differ from ANOTHER Jurisdiction. When a Nation's Civil Rights, purportedly inherent in its RULES, hasn't sufficiently its act together, to have the SAME rules across its borders! From Coast to friggin Coast, across ALL its Jurisdictions!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jurisdiction |ˌjo͝orisˈdikSHən|nounthe official power to make legal decisions and judgments: federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case |the District of Columbia was placed under the jurisdiction of Congress.• the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments: the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal.• a system of law courts; a judicature: in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder.• the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends: several different tax jurisdictions.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The frequent coinage of the word 'JURISDICTION' has become the most wonderfully used hiding tool. While its usage bears great weight, its actual meaning bears an enigmatic, ill-defined mystery.
EXAMPLE: BC Judge: "The Claim is dismissed based on lack of Jurisdiction." (Goodbye Sir)In this case, 'Jurisdiction' refers to 'Province.' The Judge is referring to the Claimant having filed his claim in the wrong Jurisdiction. i.e., the claim should have been filed in Ontario, the province in which the Defendant is domiciled. Referring to the Rule for filing a claim, the Judge is referring to the Default Rule, while ignoring the alternative 'OR' rule with its clear allowances for filing in BC.
First URL = BC's Small Claims Rules:
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20C%20--/Court%20Rules%20Act%20%5BRSBC%201996%5D%20c.%2080/05_Regulations/16_261_93%20-%20Small%20Claims%20Rules/261_93_01.xml#subrule_d2e197
Again, I post the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20C%20--/Court%20Rules%20Act%20[RSBC%201996]%20c.%2080/05_Regulations/17_168_2009%20-%20Supreme%20Court%20Civil%20Rules/168_2009_01.xml#subrule_d2e1008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have the 'SUPREME COURT ACT.' *2) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S%2D26/page-1.html#h-2
The frequent coinage of the word 'JURISDICTION' has become the most wonderfully used hiding tool. While its usage bears great weight, its actual meaning bears an enigmatic, ill-defined mystery.
EXAMPLE: BC Judge: "The Claim is dismissed based on lack of Jurisdiction." (Goodbye Sir)In this case, 'Jurisdiction' refers to 'Province.' The Judge is referring to the Claimant having filed his claim in the wrong Jurisdiction. i.e., the claim should have been filed in Ontario, the province in which the Defendant is domiciled. Referring to the Rule for filing a claim, the Judge is referring to the Default Rule, while ignoring the alternative 'OR' rule with its clear allowances for filing in BC.
First URL = BC's Small Claims Rules:
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20C%20--/Court%20Rules%20Act%20%5BRSBC%201996%5D%20c.%2080/05_Regulations/16_261_93%20-%20Small%20Claims%20Rules/261_93_01.xml#subrule_d2e197
Again, I post the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1 — Making
a Claim
Completing a notice of
claim
(1)To make a claim, a person must complete a notice of claim (Form 1)
following the instructions on the form.
Filing a notice of claim
(2) A claimant must file a notice of claim and pay the required fee at the
Small Claims Registry nearest to where
(a) the defendant lives or carries on business, or
(b) the transaction or
event that resulted in the claim took place. *)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remind the reader, (2)(a) being the 'Default' Rule (as it is called), I had used the (2)(b) Rule with its added, clearly pertinent reasons for doing so. That is when one interprets its applicable factors of solicitation, almost daily connective input, as well as the financing originating from a BC bank account.
It was not '2b.' The judge ignored my indignant pleas and set me off in to an additional 5 year nightmare, of further costs, confusion, and general trauma.
Below URL takes you to the BC Supreme Court Rules. I challenge the reader to find a clear indication as to WHERE one is to file a claim?
Rule 3-1 - Notice of Civil Claim (2)(d) "set out the proposed place of trial."
This seems to indicate Jurisdiction is up for 'argument.(?)
NOTICE in the ledger of 'Definitions' the all powerful word 'JURISDICTION' is NOT defined!
Rule 3-1 - Notice of Civil Claim (2)(d) "set out the proposed place of trial."
This seems to indicate Jurisdiction is up for 'argument.(?)
NOTICE in the ledger of 'Definitions' the all powerful word 'JURISDICTION' is NOT defined!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have the 'SUPREME COURT ACT.' *2) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S%2D26/page-1.html#h-2
This one seems to be all Canadian; "An Act respecting the Supreme Court of Canada." The 'ACT' and its Rules appear to be that of an Appeal Court. i.e. should I wish to question the Attorney General of Canada, the ultimate highest legal officer in the land; should I be prepared to question his office, to set out my 'arguments' describing how I have, in my opinion, held fast to the Rules both written and prescribed for the various Jurisdictions; yet how I feel I have been bulldozed and unfairly taken advantage of by our highest, most upright legal pillars, pillars appointed by HIS OFFICE! And what does he propose doing about it?
Would he be prepared to order this Nation re-write its laws as they are presently presented and interpreted? Would he be willing to take the present IN-justice out of the Courts, and venture to create true laws, fit for a Nation?
*2) Remember that the highest Court is called the 'Supreme Court' in BC; that this same Court is called the 'Superior Court' in Ontario; that Alberta does not have a small claims Court; that I am certain I could find other anomalies if I only dug deeper....
(apologies for inconsistencies in font looks and sizes; somehow my drag/drop/cut/paste efforts effect the general look; I can't seem to fix it, and life is short enough.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment